tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post2523855864261781146..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Bridging the GapUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51188278016712021632008-08-19T20:06:00.000-05:002008-08-19T20:06:00.000-05:00Excellent post, Tracie. I've long been fascinated...Excellent post, Tracie. I've long been fascinated with the unconcious, subconcious, etc, and the language and meaning of metaphore and symbol. I've not read any of Jung's works themselves, but I've long been exposed to his theories. <BR/><BR/>I disagree that your post was too long... but perhaps future posts of similar lengths could be behind cuts, for those who don't like length? That seems the accepted thing to do in blogs these days.AmberKatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288659650941053065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73820761031119135852008-08-18T09:33:00.000-05:002008-08-18T09:33:00.000-05:00Theo:I agree the post is too long. However, I was ...Theo:<BR/><BR/>I agree the post is too long. However, I was unable to cut more than I did (believe me, I cut). It was more an article length and less a blog length, but I believed it was worth saying, and even after saying it Zurhan’s post forced me to realize that parts would have benefited by still more clarification. I wish I could have been more aware of where content was not relevant, but I was unable (sure a potential shortcoming of my own and not a necessary reality of the content) to identify areas where cuts would not impeded the clarity of what I wanted to express.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I say all this, then offer up the verbose monstrosity below. I apologize. I’m not the most efficient wordsmith. You are right.<BR/><BR/>>god is a metaphor for something we do not yet understand but may later turn out to be something tangible. If we allow this, then we let them creep away from centuries of lies perpetrated in very church and temple.<BR/><BR/>I am less comfortable with “lie” than I am with “falsehood.” Statements are either true or false. Lies are intentionally promoted falsehoods. I do not believe most theists—even including theist leaders do not believe to some degree what they promote as religious truth. I also do not doubt that there are exceptions—people with no acceptance of the falsehoods who use the beliefs of others to take advantage of them. But I accept, like Sam Harris, that most believers really do consciously believe what they say they do. And I’ve even heard Matt describe the testimony of early witnesses as being potentially “honestly mistaken” (in response to a the question “why would they lie?”)<BR/><BR/>I guess my question would be—if god is a metaphor for something, how can we not “allow” that message without stifling what is true in order to promote our own message? And how is that different than what we accuse religion of doing? If “god is a metaphor” is uncomfortable, but turns out to be true—don’t we simply have an obligation to live with that truth and come to grips with it?<BR/><BR/>Another question is: Do you consider a metaphor to be a lie or even a falsehood? If I write a poem wherein I call my lover’s eyes stars, is that false or is it metaphor? “His eyes are bright and shining stars.” Let’s say 1,000 years hence, someone promotes that this poem is support that there were people who used to exist with eyes that consisted of molten masses of celestial gasses. If they really believe it—where is the problem? I submit the problem is in their acceptance of the metaphor as literal truth and not as metaphor.<BR/><BR/>Alternately, people use language. All over the globe. We are, inherently creatures immersed in mental symbolism. Additionally, some cultures went beyond the extreme use of language (symbolic and abstract representation of reality) to written language—another abstraction further from the reality. Would it be a stretch to ponder that perhaps the sounds and symbols we use to represent a thing like an “apple” were not chosen from conscious, rational reasons? That maybe language developed with symbols that are abstractions that even those who created it don’t understand?<BR/><BR/>Where do symbols come from? Why do I use X to “represent” Y—especially when X and Y do not appear to be related logically? Phobias are examples of unrelated symbols that people produce in their own minds that they don’t understand. Why should a person who has a fear of making decisions project that fear onto heights, for example? Certainly there is a logical connection, but not a conscious logical connection. The person may require years of therapy to discover that their fear of heights reflects the idea that “if I make a wrong move—I could die”—which ties into the idea that I exaggerate the potential consequences of my decisions in my daily life—perhaps due to an authoritarian upbringing? Who could blame someone for not making that connection consciously? And yet, phobias are not uncommon.<BR/><BR/>Religious metaphor may be produced as symbols that even the originator does not understand. And he/she may think they have divine origin. The idea of a symbol is to make a larger or abstract concept more mentally accessible. Logos are great examples of this. Flags are as well. To many people, the American flag represents not only America, but Freedom. Without a symbol, “freedom” would be extremely hard to observe. As would infinity. As would my own personal experience.<BR/><BR/>On the show yesterday, we discussed science, philosophy and religion and what they have to say about objects. Science is very well expressed using language. Mechanisms can be described extremely accurately as soon as we have a vocabulary, because we can point magnesium and say is “magnesium.” Philosophy describes meaning. Meaning is easy to express in language. The flag means freedom. We can apply words like autonomy—that we all understand. And meaning can be expressed pretty well with language. But this doesn’t work as well with experience. If I describe to you the symphony I attended last Friday—can I ever impart to you the “experience” of attending the symphony simply by using words to describe it to you?<BR/><BR/>So many times we hear theists talk about their overwhelming feelings. They want so badly to share that experience with other people. This isn’t just Christians—and to be fair, this isn’t just religion, theistic or otherwise. War veterans who fought at Normandy have annual meetings. Why? Because people generally have an urge to share their experience. The men who fought at Normandy express sometimes that they don’t feel they can share the experience with people who weren’t there. Only other men who were there, they believe, can truly understand the experience.<BR/><BR/>Theists describe experiences that even atheists can often relate to. Awe in the face of nature. It is expressed by humans regardless of theistic belief. For some people, it is hard to accept they can’t provide some means of accurate expression of what they’re feeling, and they reach for symbols. They use metaphors or actual physical symbols to express and be able to share their experiences in some way. Religion/supernatural beliefs are at least as common around the globe as language. In fact, some theists use this in order to assert that religion represents a literal truth. For example, if we see flood stories in cultures where cultural assimilation does not appear to account for their story in relation to other divine flood stories, how can that be explained?<BR/><BR/>Jung felt it was collective unconscious. To some degree, the same symbols may come up from people when they’re placed in the same circumstances—because we all have human brains that cause similar mental function. Campbell took it further to say that basically not everyone will come up with a flood story—they have to live near a river. But if cultures who are not in contact with one another, who live on rivers, produce divine flood stories, why should that be a surprise? If we take the materialist view (collective unconscious), that Jung put forward, it’s no surprise at all. If the divine explanation is correct, then we should expect flood stories that cannot be explained by assimilation that also do not correspond to people with a history of living on a river. Campbell would assert that this is the type of thing we just don’t find. (And of course we have geological evidence against the flood idea—but I’m not addressing here whether or not the flood is true from a practical standpoint. I’m addressing what it means that we see flood stories in disconnected cultures).<BR/><BR/>Zurhan:<BR/><BR/>I appreciated your posts.<BR/><BR/>>It certainly feels a bit uncomfortable to disagree with one of the greatest psychologists<BR/><BR/>Nobody is beyond question. And Jung most especially called much of his work “hypothesis.” He didn’t claim that the sources of what he observed were by any means known. He only reported what he was observing and offered his thoughts about what was causing what he was observing. He did put forward in this book, however, that there was no reason to not posit a material cause.<BR/><BR/>>but I don't think the concept of a god would be derived from the subconscious (at least not in the way I'm understanding he said it does). The subconscious impulses would do well to sustain the concept, but create I don't see.<BR/><BR/>The subconscious produces all sorts of symbols. I have met artists, for example, who express that they often don’t feel they fully understand what they paint until after they’ve painted it. Phobias are symbols of fears that are often repressed. The inexpressible, in my mind, would be one of the main things that would be prone to being converted into a symbol. But maybe I am not fully understanding your objection?<BR/><BR/>>Without the author outright stating the intended meaning, there can be no conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Is it possible that the author himself is unaware of his meaning unconscious meaning? For example, a phobic person can consciously relate that they fear snakes. However, they may not be consciously able to tell you why. Again it’s the same as the stars. What if the mind producing the phobia doesn’t understand the logic behind the symbol? Phobic people are classic examples of this. And I assert that often fictional stories and art fall to this same model. Can someone write fiction consciously choosing all aspects of the story? I suppose. Do I believe all fiction writers, themselves, understand why all the symbols they used were chosen to represent what they are trying to express? I have no reason to believe that is the case. If a character eats an apple, is that an analogy to Eden or just an apple? Why didn’t the storyteller choose any of the other myriad foods available instead? If he says “it’s just an apple,” could he, himself, be wrong? Could he have chosen the apple for reasons in his own mind that even he is unaware of? Yes. We can observe people do this.<BR/><BR/>>The reason I don't follow Jung's point is that I only had a concept of god in a truly atheistic fashion -- in response to religious claims.<BR/><BR/>That is a fair statement. I don’t think Jung is claiming that nobody can use a symbol for anything other than what it was generated for. Someone for example, might burn a US flag. Some observers, who hold the flag represents freedom, would consider it an assault on the idea of freedom. But the one burning the flag may be very much in favor of freedom and may be making a statement that our current government policies are destroying freedom. By destroying a flag, they are symbolizing the destruction of freedom. Ironically, both parties appreciate freedom. But because of their disagreement about what the symbol means, they could end up being emotionally (or even physically) opposed to one another.<BR/><BR/>>it was probably written as fiction to begin with.<BR/><BR/>This is not a safe assumption. The person writing may or may not have believed what they were writing. I believe it was fiction in the sense that it is not literally true. But whether the author held it to be literally true or fun stories (that later came to be held as true), I do not know. And either is possible depending on the book in question.<BR/><BR/>>If so, what could it be saying?<BR/><BR/>Even if not, what could it be saying? To me, the intention of the author—whether he believed it or not—is less relevant that what was meant. And the author may or may not be able to explain<BR/><BR/>>never having been religious, I don't follow the process of applying god to something<BR/><BR/>But you have heard religious people talk about their personal experience as their experience “with god.” Even miracles are a good example. The most mundane things are given divine meaning. “I prayed to find my keys, and there they were!” Meanwhile, even a nonreligious person might use the word miracle to express an experience with long odds—but only if the experience comes with deep emotional meaning. For example, if I take into consideration all the factors involved in my stepping on a piece of gum one day—what are the odds? Gum had to be invented. That particular piece had to be manufactured and distributed by a vendor and purchased by someone who came to the exact location I would occupy later! I then had to arrive on the spot before the gum was cleaned up or hardened so that it wouldn’t stick to my shoe! And that’s just a small part. My parents had to birth me; the parents of the gum manufacturer and the factory workers and guys who invented electronic assembly plants…all had birth them! Think of the crazy level of “just the right combination” that had to occur to get me to end up with gum on my shoe.<BR/><BR/>But how many people would label that “a miracle?” Just about nobody. So, “long odds” isn’t enough to make a “miracle” in the mind. On the other hand, if my life is in danger, and I nearly get killed, and some longshot saves my life—it would not be unusual for even me, as an atheist, to say, “it was a miracle they found me when they did! Another five minutes and I’d have been dead!” Other atheists would understand what I mean—that it is just a secular expression of the idea that long odds combined with emotional experience to make this particular set of long odds VERY meaningful to me personally.<BR/><BR/>It’s the experience of subconscious that brings out weird divine symbols. Drug experiences, deprivation experiences, near death experiences. People have trouble putting them into a context. They’re hard to express and they’re generally not consciously rational (or rationally interpreted). And people slap a symbol on them because they don’t know how else to define these events. People can be overwhelmed by these things and simply not know how to contextualize them without some more tangible something to relate them to—which is where symbol comes in.<BR/><BR/>To me, that makes sense, but that’s just me.<BR/><BR/>Zed:<BR/><BR/>>I should not be an atheist as I know who god is and where he resides, a projection of self identity in the imagination of the believer.<BR/><BR/>That’s similar to my response to pantheism. If their god is the universe, then I can say I’ve seen their god. But that’s just a definitional issue. I would say that what you’re describing is “I understand god is really a concept and really a symbol.” But does that make me a theist? Not in the conventional sense. But I get what you’re saying, I think.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to anyone who actually did put in the effort to plow through this beast of a post. I truly appreciate it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43560040209386722302008-08-17T18:15:00.000-05:002008-08-17T18:15:00.000-05:00Hi Tracie, long time no see.I have never read Yung...Hi Tracie, long time no see.<BR/>I have never read Yung. In pop psych I am limited to Boyer and Pinker but given your review I think my own anecdotal experience is more in line with Yung’s view.<BR/>When working through my thoughts on atheism I ponder the notion that I should not be an atheist as I know who god is and where he resides, a projection of self identity in the imagination of the believer. <BR/>I do at times avoid calling out my atheism with people I like or wish to not offend because I feel that I am not denouncing their god per se but their own identity. Of course, if I am talking to an ass I will point out that they are their own god and god is a moron.<BR/>MikeZedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09711262934550781276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19517703303629510632008-08-17T15:24:00.000-05:002008-08-17T15:24:00.000-05:00Hilarious evolution cartoon on vadlo!Hilarious <A HREF="http://www.vadlo.com/Cartoons/Life_in_Research_Cartoon_1139.html" REL="nofollow">evolution cartoon</A> on vadlo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73828522359154248792008-08-17T14:54:00.000-05:002008-08-17T14:54:00.000-05:00I didn't mean to imply the book's focus was on the...I didn't mean to imply the book's focus was on the symbolic nature of the Bible, rather just something that came to mind about your intent to further investigate the suggested "self" symbolism.<BR/><BR/>It certainly feels a bit uncomfortable to disagree with one of the greatest psychologists, meanwhile having no credentials, but I don't think the concept of a god would be derived from the subconscious (at least not in the way I'm understanding he said it does). The subconscious impulses would do well to sustain the concept, but create I don't see. I guess that's where actually reading the book itself would help.<BR/><BR/><I>If I ask them "why are stars used to represent states?" I probably won't get one person who claims they know--but some might wager guesses.</I><BR/><BR/>I really like that example, because thus is the nature of symbolism. Without the author outright stating the intended meaning, there can be no conclusion. My example was directly aiming for this point. The reason I don't follow Jung's point is that I only had a concept of god in a truly atheistic fashion -- in response to religious claims.<BR/><BR/>The "existence" angle only came from considering that if I don't think the Bible is true, it was probably written as fiction to begin with. If so, what could it be saying? In that way, I was applying the existence label to god instead of the other way around. Due to never having been religious, I don't follow the process of applying god to something, but my mind even in areas outside of religion is one of the worst representations of the majority possible.Zurahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06325048684652466640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35574616260392743802008-08-17T12:10:00.000-05:002008-08-17T12:10:00.000-05:00Really interesting post as always, Ms. Harris. I'd...Really interesting post as always, Ms. Harris. I'd comment but I should probably leave it to the more well-informed readers.<BR/><BR/>The very fact that the concept of picking up a book(what's this "libery" you speak of?) is a completely alien concept to me should give everyone an idea of the magnitude of my inadequacy. =D<BR/><BR/>So, will this be your subject for today's show?. If I'm not mistaken, it's your turn to co-host. If it isn't, I hope you'll consider it for a future episode.Adraelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05973486036413829486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20142209555871182592008-08-17T07:50:00.000-05:002008-08-17T07:50:00.000-05:00You bring up another excellent point that I may we...You bring up another excellent point that I may well have confused in the post. We have a US flag that has 50 stars upon it. If I go out and take a poll and ask people on the streets in the US--what do the stars represent on the US flag? Nearly all of them--down to the youngest elementary school child--will answer correctly that they represent states.<BR/><BR/>If I ask them "why are stars used to represent states?" I probably won't get one person who claims they know--but some might wager guesses.<BR/><BR/>When you say that god represented existence to you--that is the stars representing states. What Jung is asking is "Why did you choose the god symbol to represent existence?" What do stars have to do with states? Also, Jung would ask--why are there so many stars used on national and state flags?<BR/><BR/>I also used god to represent existence. However, I have to admit that I adopted an old symbol to apply. God (the symbol) existed long before I applied it to existence. Why was the symbol initially created?<BR/><BR/>Jung can't help but recognize that we have in our heads, another "mind" of which we're unaware except for cryptic messages and impulses we don't seem to consciously generate. His assertion is that this other mind has inspired god. That from an evolutionary standpoint, when our "conscious" mind spawned, it had to acknowledge the existence of some"one" else communicating to it from seemingly out of nowhere. It made "god." God, in Jung's opinion, is the product of the human consciousness trying to make sense of and account for the "other personality"--the unconscious.<BR/><BR/>Now, our personal unconscious applications of the symbol once it's created are less important to his discussion--but they do address the idea of "would god die if we demystified the subconscious--since we can apply god elsewhere?"<BR/><BR/>Oddly enough, in reading Sam Harris this morning, I came across this quote: "What makes one person happier than another? Why is love more conducive to happiness than hate?...Is the ego an illusion, and, if so, what implications does this have for human life?...These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers."<BR/><BR/>Of course, that doesn't clinch it by any means. Jung, Sam, and I may all be wrong about that. "God knows" god has survived this long in the face of social and educational advances. So, who can say for sure if new applications, such as "god = existence" could not be successfully applied to keep the ball rolling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1528273491352974652008-08-17T07:13:00.000-05:002008-08-17T07:13:00.000-05:00I don't think that Jung puts forward that the symb...I don't think that Jung puts forward that the symbolism is intentional. In fact, I would say he is a strong advocate that symbolism by and large is hardly ever intentionally applied. Especially with regard to religion, real believers have symbols that surface--and it's not as important to Jung why they surface as simply acknowledging that they do surface, and that they appear to repeat (at least that's his contention).<BR/><BR/>His concept is with so many psyches, past and present, adding to, and editing, the list of religious symbols--some personal, some collective--it's most likely that the symbols that will endure and appeal will be the ones _with_ the broadest appeal. So that over 2,000 years or more, you get a system of filtered symbols--most likely unconsciously applied, and probably unconsciously recognized (but very attractive to many people)--if in fact the collective unconscious model holds any weight.<BR/><BR/>If I didn't make that clear, I appreciate you bringing it up so that I could clarify. I don't want to misrepresent what Jung does/does not put forward.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59515828109434168172008-08-17T05:03:00.000-05:002008-08-17T05:03:00.000-05:00I found this interesting but tedious - please try ...I found this interesting but tedious - please try to be brief next time. Some of us are not quite up to your literary prowess and I am sure you made some very convincing points which I missed through lack of stamina.<BR/><BR/>Many modern theologians are claiming that god is a metaphor for something we do not yet understand but may later turn out to be something tangible. <BR/><BR/>If we allow this, then we let them creep away from centuries of lies perpetrated in very church and temple.TheEOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13942454276790726039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77763833231717103442008-08-17T04:35:00.000-05:002008-08-17T04:35:00.000-05:00I blame Jung for being one of the few who really h...I blame Jung for being one of the few who really helped muddle the idea that atheism can be some form of religion. <BR/><BR/>He works amazingly well when you apply his work to something like screenwriting and how people connect since we are all the same on a fundamental level... but beyond that Jung's god as self has seriously screwed so many people up into believing that such a thing IS atheism. <BR/><BR/>Okay so it's not really Jung's fault but could you imagine how much time we could save in conversation with theists if Jung had used some other term. <BR/><BR/>Meh.Nr Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06314959355791540162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38516983998600729632008-08-16T13:47:00.000-05:002008-08-16T13:47:00.000-05:00I actually managed to read it all.While I'm sure t...I actually managed to read it all.<BR/><BR/>While I'm sure the concept of God as self would prove an interesting study, it working I think only adds to the idea that trying to formulate an objective understanding to the Bible as symbolism is just as absurd as accepting the literal meaning of it.<BR/><BR/>My earliest idea of symbolic representation of the abrahamic god was as a metaphore for existence itself. Always existent, all-powerful, all-knowing, all things. Is all-good and all-bad for seemingly random reasons. I think it works well, but would I actually believe that was the intention? I'd put the odds quite low.Zurahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06325048684652466640noreply@blogger.com